Al D. Checo v. State
402 S.W.3d 440
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- M.C., age 7, was abducted on May 21, 2010 after Checo lured her from a street near a bike lane to his green pickup truck.
- Checo drove M.C. to his townhouse, exposed himself, showed her pornography, and then returned her to her home; he advised her not to tell anyone.
- M.C. identified Checo later at the scene and in court, and police obtained warrants to search Checo’s person, townhouse, truck, and a laptop in the truck.
- Forensic examination of seized devices revealed extensive child pornography; a United States Secret Service examiner, Russell Sparks, testified to the volume and Checo’s ownership of the materials.
- Checo testified, admitting the abduction but alleging two masked gunmen forced him, claiming ownership of only the truck’s computer and denying possession of child pornography.
- The trial court admitted various items seized during the searches, and Checo was convicted on multiple counts with concurrent sentencing on the child pornography counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrants were impermissibly broad or lacking probable cause | Checo contends warrants were broad/general and lacked probable cause | State asserts warrants were sufficiently particular and probable cause existed | Warrants were sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause |
| Admissibility of specific evidence (webcam/MiniDisc videos, chat logs, pump, lubricants, Alamo tracts) under Rules 402/403 | Checo argues the items were irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial | State maintains relevance and probative value outweigh prejudice | Most challenged items admitted; 403 balancing upheld for MiniDisc videos and chat logs; lubricants not preserved on record; overall admission affirmed |
| Whether the warrants’ introductory language rendered them essentially general | Checo argues broad introductory language makes warrants general | State argues severing general language from specific categories salvages validity | Overbroad language severable; warrants valid under the particularized categories |
Key Cases Cited
- Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976) (specificity matters; general warrants improper)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause standard)